Whether Zeiny's rights would prevail over the CIA's power

QUESTION PRESENTED , This case represents a challenge to the liberty and justice values of our nation. Petitioner and plaintiff, “Zeiny’, is under represented, pro se, immigrant, Muslim and nobody, and suffers from schizophrenia. His opponent in the case is the mighty Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) with its well, known powers and unlimited resources. The challenge is whether Zeiny’s rights would prevail over the CIA’s power. The case is about the numerous tormenting and harassing acts that rouge individuals from the CIA (hereafter, “CIAA”) did to Zeiny after he complained about their misconduct to the Congressman Michael Honda in July 2010. Following his complaints, the CIAA started tormenting him and ruining his life. Among others, the CIAA sabotaged two of his employments, career and mental health, and subjected him to a significant number of harassing and tormenting acts (hereafter, “ACTS”!), The ACTS included a criminal attempt to poison Zeiny during his hospital stay by the CIAA’s manager. This criminal incident was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) and the manager was arrested, convicted, sent to prison and his wealth was taken. The CIAA have been under investigation by the FBI for what they have been doing to Zeiny. The court of appeals ruled that Zeiny’s allegations are not substantial. Zeiny contends that most of his 1The ACTS are listed in details later in this document. They include a “deal” given to Zeiny to relieve himself from the ACTS. il allegations were verified by the FBI. This case was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§1346(b), 2671-2680. _ for the inflection of emotional destress on Zeiny. The presented questions are: 1. Was the Court of appeals correct in ignoring the findings by the FBI and deny the substantiality of Zeiny’s allegations? 2. Whether Zeiny’s complaint satisfied the essential factual elements that would _ establish substantiality and cross the threshold of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) ? 3. Was the court of appeals correct in denying Zeiny’s motion to resubmit the petition after adding missing facts? Zeiny believes that these missing facts would have affected the outcome of the rehearing petition. Zeiny is pro se and suffers from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type?, and is expected to overlook important facts. 2 See